An Economy Based on Thin Air

The Republican's favorite talking point is that, under a Republican administration, Americans of all economic stripes can expect to do well and advance into retirement age with a nice, sensible nest egg. All the middle class has to do is sit back and enjoy the benefits of financial policies that are, at base, designed to benefit rich people, and they will bathe in a shower of trickling down financial benefit, jumping into old age with the safety and security of a bank account made more robust by good financial times and solid, solvent programs like Medicare and Social Security (never mind that these are really socialist-style programs that were put in place by Democrats and would be condemned by Republicans if they thought they could get away with it).

The truth, in 2019, heading into a presidential election year, is beginning to look a little different. For one thing, despite the Republican insistence that everyone is doing just fine, that the economy is soaring and everyone is living the life they dreamed of, the reality for most in the middle class is very different. At the bottom of the economic ladder, we find a homelessness crisis unlike any in the history of the United States. In one city alone, Los Angeles, there are nearly 60,000 men, women and children living in tents or on the street, unable to afford rent in a city that was once famous for affordable housing.

While it's true that Trump has continued the economic policies that Obama set in motion so that the numbers are still positive (as of this writing, 2019, unemployment is at a record low) the fact is that wages have not kept up with expenses and most people who aren't wealthy or super-wealthy are struggling to make their monthly payments. Republicans don't address THAT side of the economy because it puts their rosy outlook on the grill. (38.)

And what of those “socialist” policies that Americans, including Republicans, look forward to collecting in old age – Medicare and Social Security. Both programs have been under threat for some years; there is simply not enough money in the treasury to guarantee that these programs will remain solvent into the future, and when Republicans repudiate their own policy of lowering the national debt (Republicans used to wave this issue at Democrats on a regular basis) they are putting these programs into more jeopardy. As the national debt rises and as taxes are lowered by trillions of wealthy dollars, there may not be enough money to fund these necessary programs in the years to come.

Wonder why more and more senior citizens are straying from the “safety” of Republican economics?

After the Impeachment Investigation, What Now?

"And you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend. You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction." (Barry McGuire's famous song, "Eve of Destruction" from the mid-Sixties.)

Things are looking bad, people. We've just concluded two weeks of Congressional testimony, during which six prominent, patriotic Americans testified, under penalty of perjury, that a grand conspiracy was conducted behind the walls of the White House, a conspiracy so sickening that many observers, including Watergate alums, John Dean and Carl Bernstein, have declared it to be "worse than Watergate."

The present Republican administration, it has been clearly shown, colluded to prevent an American ally, Ukraine, from receiving desperately needed assistance, until -- and unless -- it agreed to instigate a formal "investigation" into the supposed corruption of Trump political rival, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The bribe was so blatant that these career officers were moved to object in the most public of ways, testifying to the House Intelligence Committee's Impeachment investigation.

Everything should be heading toward the trial and conviction of one Donald Trump in the Senate, right? Yet where does the country find itself, immediately after the testimony of, among others, a celebrated Lt. Col., a highly respected Russia expert, who was hired by the Trump administration to advise it on Russia matters, and even a Trump "donor" who was rewarded for his million dollar contribution to the Inaugural Committee with an Ambassadorship to the E.U.?

The nation is just as divided as before the hearings. Support for Impeachment has not increased but has gone down a few points, according to an Emerson College poll, conducted immediately after the hearings. Many of those questioned in the poll just don't seem to have a full understanding of what Trump's quid pro quo means to the presidency and to the nation.

What's going on here? Is no one paying attention?

The next few days and weeks will prove critical to the fate of the hearings and to the state of play in Washington. A nation asleep may not be able to change course once it decides to wake up. After the nightmare has gone down, sleep may be harder to come by. Or it may be impossible.

Looking Backwards

With the new crazy season upon us it may be instructive to look back on some thoughts from a few eons ago -- that would be 2016, the year America fell off the cliff, apparently -- and see where things were heading a few months before the election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency:

There is an awful lot of noise out there, folks. That’s because–like it or not–the political season has begun (this year, earlier than ever). Unlike other civilized societies (Britain, much of Europe, and even a few third-world countries) the Presidential season in America lasts as long as the politicians feel the need to spew their verbal commercial vomit. In those other countries the campaign season is limited and brief. The UK just elected their new (and old) Prime Minister in a campaign that lasted a whole six weeks!

Here in the U.S. we are faced with the spectacle of a Republican Party where almost every possible candidate has declared, is about to declare, or is threatening to declare a candidacy. The “front runner,” is not even officially running but everyone has decided he’s the one to beat. And by the way, that front runner is the candidate that most people say they do not want to see running at all, Jeb (brother-son) Bush. Why is Bush the front runner? Because everyone thinks he is. On the other side we have the equally distressing spectacle of a Democratic Party that has all but thrown up its collective hands, deciding there is no–and cannot be any–alternative to the presumed party standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton (or as the pundits and anti-Hillary folks like to call her, “Hillary.”

So once again, American voters are confronted with a choice between a Bush and a Clinton. Boring! Boring! Boring! And, of course, this raises the obvious question: if we are going to have to choose between two oh-so-very well known candidates, why is it necessary to have an election cycle that goes on and on for almost two years?

The answer is this: there is so much at stake in the next few years, and there are so many interested parties here, that the parties (that’s small p) want to carry on the discussion as long as possible. And let’s be frank: an awful lot of people love this stuff and want it to go on as long as possible. And there’s money to be made by all those officials, consultants, planners and potential future diplomats.

It’s going to be a long campaign season, the longest ever. Fasten your seat belts, America. There’s going to be a bad case of jet lag after this one.